Let's do some figures. In approximately 30 years of power, Saddam is said to have killed 100,000 or maybe 150,000 or perhaps 300,000 of his own people. And in the 4 years of liberation of the Iraqi people (not counting the first Gulf War) 600,000 or maybe more than 900,000 Iraqis have been killed. We have a winner! The world (the Jewish world) is better off without him in power.

Let's do some figures. In approximately 30 years of power, Saddam is said to have killed 100,000 or maybe 150,000 or perhaps 300,000 of his own people. And in the 4 years of liberation of the Iraqi people (not counting the first Gulf War) 600,000 or maybe more than 900,000 Iraqis have been killed. We have a winner! The world (the Jewish world) is better off without him in power.

To add to that millions of Iraqi babies were literally starved to death and undernourished (probably in preparation of the ZOG assault) and Madeleine Albright passed it away as 'collateral damage' :madex

3. "CollateralDamage." The Orwellian highpoint of the Gulf War was the discovery of the anti-septic phrase "collateraldamage" to cover over the harsh realities of innocent civilian deaths. Thousands died in the bombings, but far more devastating were the effects of our economic blockade after the war. A United Nations investigation found our blockade of Iraq led to the deaths of an estimated half-million young children from disease and malnutrition.
CBS reporter Lesley Stahl had a chance to interview our soon-to-be Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1996 about this sensitive issue on 60 Minutes. Asked Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"
To this Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

Sadddam Hussein isn't good, he is great. He is the only person that can keep the Kurds, Sunni's and Shiite's from killing each other. Now we are going to kill the only person who could keep that Sh**hole called Iraq together.

So you think he is great because he forced different ethnicities to live together in some multicultural police state?

Do you think Bush is great also, becuase he force blacks, mexicans, asians and whites to live together in one nation?

Kurds have own language and culture. Just becuase shiites and sunnis are Arab semites doesn't mean they are one people and should live in one nation. Shiites and sunnis can apparently not live together, so why force them to do that? They will only be able to live together if goverment constantly controls them and oppress them.

So you think he is great because he forced different ethnicities to live together in some multicultural police state?

Do you think Bush is great also, becuase he force blacks, mexicans, asians and whites to live together in one nation?

This makes a very good point. Keep in mind also that in the past Catholic vs Protestant was a life and death issue in Europe.

I am not sure how it might have worked out had he tried to gain the cooperation of the Shiites and Kurds in governing Iraq, perhaps even through some form of autonomous regions. Tough row to hoe, especially with oil playing such a large role.

But I am always opposed to forcing disparate groups into a multi-anything hell.

Kurds have own language and culture. Just becuase shiites and sunnis are Arab semites doesn't mean they are one people and should live in one nation. Shiites and sunnis can apparently not live together, so why force them to do that? They will only be able to live together if goverment constantly controls them and oppress them.